Skip to main content

tv   Countdown With Keith Olbermann  MSNBC  December 2, 2009 8:00pm-9:00pm EST

8:00 pm
which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? afghanistan -- liberals like the withdrawal plan, don't like the troop increase. conservatives like the troop increase, don't like the withdrawal plan. this confuses republicans who assumed democrats toed the party line without thinking. like they do. the secretary of state, secretary of defense, chairman of joint chiefs testified to senate armed services and house foreign affairs. >> july 2011 is went we expect the transition process to again. >> that date condition-based or not? >> no, sir. >> the far right thinks obama should have thrown in more bloodlust, torture, and demands for victory and it's completely forgotten he already sent 17,000 more troops to afghanistan 28 days after he was sworn in. >> it took him 80-some odd days to do this. took us 50-some odd days to remove the taliban from power in
8:01 pm
afghanistan after 9/11. >> hey, porky pig, too bad you didn't do anything to keep them out of power when you quit on afghanistan. mccain against health care reform decrisis medicare cuts. the aarp has to remind him those cuts are wasteful spending, like the kind of cuts he promised to make when he ran for president last year. worsts -- lou the birther asks, with who the hell does this president think he is? he knows, lou, you're the one who can't seem to figure it out. and tiger woods apologizes for transgressions, personal failings, says he has not been true to my values. as a message he left on another woman's voice mail surfaces. >> hey, it's tiger. i need you to do something. >> that's the name of rachel -- no, collieka, no, jaimiee, the cocktail waitress in l.a. -- in
8:02 pm
short, tiger woods continues to have problems with his putts. all the news and commentary now on "countdown." >> a long way to go, plenty of holes to play. good evening from new york. america's relationship with the islamic world in cairo. race in philadelphia. religion and politics, especially abortion at notre dame. we can now add president obama's address on afghanistan from the u.s. military academy at west point. in our fifth story in the countdown, will last night's speech be remembered for having the same impacts or change assed a many minds or any minds. including his decision to send roughly 30,000 new troops to afghanistan and his announcement that that u.s. forces would start coming home by july 2011, about 19 months from now. the taliban saying that president obama's quote will not pay off.
8:03 pm
and will only bring more american casualties by giving insurgents an opportunity, quote, to increase their attacks, and shake the american economy. general mcchrystal, the top u.s. nato commander in afghanistan telling american troops in kandahar today that by this time next year, we'll see a level of progress. he added that the war will go on for quite a while, but he believes that it will be decided in the next year or two. meantime on capitol hill, members of the cabinet, including secretary of state clinton and defense secretary gates testifying today to both chambers of commerce, the sticking point for republicans, not so much how to pay for the escalation, but announcing a start date for bringing troops home. >> the question is, have we locked ourself into leaving in july of 2011? >> senator graham, i do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving, but what we have done, and i think it was an appropriate position for the president to take, is to signal very clearly to all audiences
8:04 pm
that the united states is not interested in occupying afghanistan, we are not interested in running their country, building their nation. we are trying to give them the space and time to be able to build up sufficient forces to defend themselves. >> of course, democrats, meantime, like the withdrawal date, but not so much the escalation of the forces. >> my fear, as is the fear of so many others, is that we could easily get bogged down in an endless war. what happens if this doesn't work? do we leave in three years, as the president stated? or do we stay longer? >> pakistan is making progress. we've got a new president in afghanistan. we've got the right leadership on the ground. we've got the right leadership in the embassy, that now is the time and we can actually turn this thing around. so i don't have an expectation that we're going to get bogged down there. >> we've been there eight years now. and we're still talking about
8:05 pm
turning it around. is 18 months going to be sufficient? what has happened over the course of eight years? >> in my view, when you underresource an effort for an extended period of time, when you, in many ways, starve an effort, the impact -- and i don't just mean with forces, because we've done it with training, done it intellectually, diplomatically, politically, you name it. we were focused on the other war. >> presumably, without knowing wibt admiral mullen eviscerating the chief complaint that arose today from another member of the bush administration. mr. rumsfeld, today's winner of the dick cheney who asked you trophy, for having said in a statement, "in his speech to the nation last night, president obama claimed that commanders in afghanistan were repeatedly asked for support to deal with the remernlgs of the taliban. such a statement deserves a response. i am not a ware of a single request of that nature between
8:06 pm
2001 and 2006. if any such requests occurred, repeated or not, the white house should promptly make them public. the president's assertion does a disservice to the truth and in particular to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served, and sacrificed in afghanistan. in interests of better understanding the president's announcement last night, i suggest that the congress review the president ee's assertion." congress having done just that today with the testimony of admiral mullen this afternoon. time to call in jonathan alter with "newsweek" magazine. republicans dislike significant parts of this plan. democrats dislike significant parts of this plan, obviously, for differing reasons. if you're the white house, do you rush to that old statement that if everybody hates it, we must be doing something right? >> i think that is probably what they're saying inside. it could have been a lot worse today. the questions on capitol hill were mostly quite responsible and appropriate. they're trying to flesh out the policy and i think people who are reasonable were trying to
8:07 pm
govern are taking a wait-and-see attitude rather than leaping on the president to pummel him from either the left or the right. it's kind of like, let's give it one last old college try. 18 months, and then assess where we are. >> not everybody, of course, being as responsible as you suggest there. there were some republican conservative talking points here that criticize the president for being more of a follower than a leader, suggesting that this decision was more general mcchrystal's than it was the president. but was it not the previous president, mr. bush, who made a mantra to the point of really just numbing the minds of a nation by claiming he would always listen to the commanders on the ground? >> well, first of all, it isn't just rubber stamping what general mcchrystal said. this is the product of nine two-hour meetings, where they went over this very, very carefully and they're trying to apply some real intelligence and put their eye back on the ball. that was the problem under bush, is that they got distracted by
8:08 pm
iraq. they underresourced it. what rumsfeld said today was completely untrue. it was great to see him slam dunked. they did not respond to what the commanders on the ground wanted, so they executed poorly. and eventually, general mullen had to fire general mckiernan and start anew at the beginning of this year. so we're going to see whether some basic competence works. and it might not. i'm not polyannish about this, and i know you aren't either. this just might not be possible because the karzai government is not up to it. and in these situations, keith, the weaker party calls the tune. this was true when the british had their empire, you know, was true with the saigon regime in vietnam. essentially, barack obama is at the mercy of hamid karzai. he is holding the cards. he is holding obama's fate in his hands, this corrupt, hapless
8:09 pm
audit accurate half a world a way. this was always been the nation of big power/smaller power relations. the smaller power calls the tune. and we have to live with that. but that doesn't necessarily mean this will be a failure. >> back here, the issue of the republican decrying of the time line, they also did that with the time line in iraq, and this was during the bush administration, and president bush implemented one anyway. and correct me if i'm mistaken about this, but to this date, virtually none of the scenarios the republicans warned would come to pass there with a time line in place have happened. so why are they relevant about afghanistan after seven years, eight years of republican neglect of afghanistan? >> look, everybody was wrong about iraq. the republicans were wrong about time lines, the democrats were wrong in saying that the surge would fail. i was among those who didn't think the surge would work.
8:10 pm
the advantage of time lines in afghanistan is it puts more pressure on karzai. you know, it's not -- mccain has it exactly wrong. the concern is not that the enemy will outlast us, the concern is that the -- our friends there won't feel the heat and we'll lose our leverage. and the best leverage we have over karzai is that if we leave, he fails, and he gets removed from power by whoever comes next. so we need to give him a stake in making this work. and a short time horizon is the best way to do that, as well as, essentially, adhering to the powell doctrine, which quite sensibly says that you need an exit strategy when you get involved. >> have we had any idea yet, any measurement, any polling of general public reaction to this yet? >> you know, i don't think we do. the polls that you would see today would be instant polls. it would not be very reliable.
8:11 pm
it's probably not going to be popular. look, before the speech, this was unpopular. it's very hard after eight years to come in and get people all revved up. but i do think that by explaining the history of this, by taking us back to 9/11, by essentially saying, look, iraq was a total distraction from taking care of business after 9/11, the president did persuade the public that he at least deserves a little bit of time to try to make this work. >> jonathan alter of msnbc and "newsweek." as always, john, great thanks. >> thanks, keith. pundits have been twisting themselves into pretzels. for democrats and progressives, the challenge has been finding a way to reconcile three things. the escalation of war, any war. the escalation of war by this president, the escalation of war by this president, even though he campaigned on promises made
8:12 pm
in an entirely different world economic condition. that he would send more troops to afghanistan as part of his strategy to complete the u.s. mission there. for more on that, let's turn to chris hayes, washington editor of "the nation" magazine. chris, good evening. >> good to see you, keith. >> on its front page today, the folks at politico literally put a shot of obama in the middle -- i'm sorry. it's just such a funny picture. i don't know who the guy on the right is and what is he doing there, but to make it look like these are the polls and he is in the middle, somewhere, oversimplification aside, this is possible, right? you could oppose the war in afghanistan and still support the president, generally? that's still logically possible? >> of course it's logically possible. look, you know, even more than supporting wi ining the preside and i and progressives generally support some vision of the world that's more peaceful, more equitable, more humane, more
8:13 pm
sustainable and they think the president is a good vessel to achieve that world and they're generally in agreement on those goals. so, you know, that's basically where the kind of point of contact is. i even think, to be totally honest, the kind of toe tenic power, this phrase, "support the president" has on our politics is an artifact to the fact that we've become millty sized. it has become normalcy. and that's part of the fundamental problem. >> is it -- are we so far removed from the day when people with largely overlapping viewpoints of the world could disagree on a major issue of policy without this kind of reaction that the media, even the media specializing in covering politics, is still viewing it as, wow, a liberal has disagreed with obama on fill in the blank.
8:14 pm
therefore, obama's finished, might as well resign. >> yeah. i think that one of the legacies of the bush administration, in this respect, is the fact that there was this kind of fall behind the leader attitude taken on the right. partly, i think that's sort of a function of the way conservatives view politics, partly was a function of this kind of wartime status. and that proved to be a tragic error. i think we can all agree on that. conservatives and liberals and progressives with that if there had been more conservatives speaking up against the iraq war, right, that might have forestalled that disaster. so what you want is you want this kind of healthy tension in the public debate in which people hugh to their principles and disagree with the people they generally disagree with. >> this might get a little too marcus areelyus here, but 18
8:15 pm
months ago, the then-candidate obama wrote this op-ed for "the new york times" that basically spelled out this, his policy now in afghanistan. and it's fair to say, one opposed this, but one voted for him anyway. or world conditions, especially the economy, have hugely changed, he should change too. but he did write this out for everybody. we have it in writing. this is the point where marcus writes, who's responsible for your sense of surprise, the other guy or yourself? >> that's exactly right. you can say a lot of things about this policy, that it's misguided, that it's tragic, that it's terrible. what you can't say is you didn't see this coming. they were clear. the obama campaign, obama himself, iraq was the bad war. afghanistan was the good war. it had diverted ours resources to iraq. we were going to reply them to afghanistan. we needed to finish the job there. that was a phrase. so whatever sentiments people feel about this policy, and i'm deeply, deeply anxious and frustrated and disappointed, it's not like there's a great betrayal here. i mean, this was part of the campaign and, you know, people
8:16 pm
need to face up to that. >> this is still, however, even politically, predicated on a pullout beginning on or about july 2011 with not too much of a window for delay. the latest that it was january 2012. what happens if, for whatever reason, that is delayed? what happens politically? wants to the support for obama for those people who are today saying, i don't like this, but i'm still, you know, on mostly agreement side with him? >> well, a lot happens -- a lot depends on the facts on the ground. you know, if things get better in afghanistan, then it might be fine. if suddenly, you know, we have this sort of peaceful panacea, that seems incredibly unlikely. the big fear, i think the fear that people on the left really have is the lyndon johnson scenario, in which the war really does become a quagmire. 18 months from now, they want were troops, and that's really, really going to hurt politically. >> chris hayes of "the nation," let's hope we're not talking
8:17 pm
about that in 18 months. as you know, obama should be blamed and pilloried because he would not commit to an endless war in afghanistan, although george w. bush vanquished the taliban in afghanistan in 50 days. these things were said within days of each other. and the swinging and missing extends back to health care reform. tonight, john mccain has suddenly become the conservative's go-sto senator. yet for the second time in three days, he's made an extraordinary gaffe. this time criticizing medicare cuts that are, in fact, exactly the kind of wasteful spending he vowed to cut when he ran for president. and spending two hours in the chair. there's nothing like feeling the open air freedom of my jeep wrangler. to make vanity... fly right out the window. i live. i ride. i am. jeep.
8:18 pm
on why on earth republicans are turned to john mccain as their anti-health care reform point man when he's now screwed up twice in two trips to the senate floor. karl rove's claim that would be hysterically funny if not for the american lives that he put at risk. that president obama should have an open-ended war against an
8:19 pm
opponent that president bush already defeated. and we have gotten the name of the movie about the tiger woods debacle. collieka. bl i've been growing algae for 35 years. most people try to get rid of algae, and we're trying to grow it. the algae are very beautiful. they come in blue or red, golden, green. algae could be converted into biofuels... that we could someday run our cars on. in using algae to form biofuels, we're not competing with the food supply. and they absorb co2, so they help solve the greenhouse problem, as well.
8:20 pm
we're making a big commitment to finding out... just how much algae can help to meet...
8:21 pm
senate democrats today plants a fat lump of coal in republicans' stockings, telling republicans they will work up through christmas if the gop continues to stall the health care debate. but in our fourth story tonight, how do we know the republicans are stalling? first hint, republicans are now blocking a vote on their own amendment. second hint, that amendment from john mccain defending the elderly from medicare cuts was called out as crap today by the
8:22 pm
american association of retired persons. republican leader, mitchell mcconnell, yesterday told democrats he would not agree to schedule a vote on mccain's amendment which was offered on monday. the gop maverick was operating at the request of his party leaders. mccain saying, no, that's not right, quote, i never proposed cuts in medicare. i proposed savings! which is exactly what he's opposing now. the aarp letter endorsie ining "savings" realized by cutting the "waste, fraud, and abuse." the legislation does not guarantee any medicare benefits. harry reid is back to looking at how he can short circuit republican stalling with republican help. john carper has been working for support from olympia snowe who has endorsed a triggered public option. her maine colleague says she has
8:23 pm
been in talks with nancy-ann deparle. joining us now, "washington post" staff reporter ezra klein. good evening, sir. >> hi, keith. >> harry reid, tom carper. are they in the process of eviscerating a meaningful public option so they can score an easy win with republican help from maine, or are they going to get something worthwhile as a result of this and cut joe lieberman and maybe somebody else out of the process? >> i wouldn't call it an easy win. but i think what we're seeing here is the public option being compromised into meaninglessness. i think what we're looking at from carper, and we don't know the details yet, so i should say it's provisional, but the early reporting says it's going to be a triggered opt-in non-medicare, exchange-limited, nonprofit option. now, you should only have so many qualifiers on a single policy and i think we've reached the point where we have a couple too many. so i think what's going to come out of here is something that half the people can say, we got a public option, and half can
8:24 pm
say, we don't have a public option. and i think we're tipping towards the point where the half saying we don't have a public option is actually right. >> the idea of carper's thing, it's severed from the government. by itself, would that either pass muster with progressives, or more importantly, would it improve anything? >> i don't think it would pass muster with progressives, but, i think as you say, more importantly, it won't improve anything. you know, i think that we have hit, quite sadly, frankly, the point where you have to ask, is the right compromise on the public option a further compromise to the public option. or is it to say, okay, you want to kill this? well, this was here to create affordability and choice, so we need $100 billion more in subsidies and we need national exchanges or any number of other compromises that you might look at. but i think the way they're looking at the math in the senate right now, it's not even the republicans from maine. it's ben nelson, it's joe lieberman, evan bayh, blanche lincoln, mary landrieu and they're saying, we can't get this. but the compromise they're
8:25 pm
trying to work out isn't a compromise that's going to help anybody, it's a symbolic compromise. and i'm not sure that's worth fighting for. >> the republican senator judd gregg today issued a manual for his colleagues to help stall things, to help drag things out. and tell me if i've got this wrong. but if republicans offered no amendments, cleared the way for reid to end the debate, move on to a vote, they would reveal the fact that reid himself does not want to do so yet because he does not have 60 votes, no matter what we're talking about. but, instead, republicans will conceal reid's weakness in numbers by obstructing -- how does that work to their benefit? >> you know, their idea to just make as many speeches as they want. and they know that reid can't call a vote yet, because he doesn't have nelson, doesn't have blanche or collins. he'll have to make changes. but you're seeing the fundamental problem for any politics right now. the senate doesn't work. the fact that you need unanimous consent to have a vote on
8:26 pm
something. forgetting cloture, where you need 60 votes to have a vote on thinki anything. you also have 100 people agree to have the filibuster vote to have a vote. we're two votes removed now. i think at some point people need to look at this process and see that it doesn't just show that republicans are being objecti obstructionists, but that there is a problem. i don't know how long the country can go if you can't even run that correctly. >> we may have to reduce that number again. one seminal point to close here. i've heard different answers to this. the republicans have said passing any health care reform would be a disaster for the democrats politically. then why oppose anything. can it not be interpreted that the republicans think passing something, almost anything, would ultimately work to the democrats' benefit. >> they're terrified. call this the we can't touch
8:27 pm
medicare problem. you have john mccain on the floor saying, anything you do to medicare, we want to strip oit out. republicans opposed the creation of medicare. john mccain, himself, oppose $1.3 trillion to cuts in it while he was running for president and it's too popular. this was the problem in '94 to do. newt gingrich said, if we let the democrats pass this bill, it will reknit the connections between the ms the in the middle class. they're in this problem right now where it's hard to oppose this bill, because it will be popular. what they're afraid of is not that the bill won't work, but that it will. >> ezra klein of "the washington post," great thanks for your insight tonight. >> thank you. in one breath, karl rove has criticized the president for overlaying a 25-month time line on our involvement in afghanistan while boasting that president bush toppled the taliban in only 50 days. on top of which, if bush had toppled the taliban, we would have been out of afghanistan by 2004 latest. karl rove rewrites industry again. can't even do that well.
8:28 pm
8:29 pm
8:30 pm
8:31 pm
the tiger or the ladies? there are three of them now. maybe four. i haven't checked in nearly 30 seconds. first on this date, a president of the united states in the 15th month of a profound economic dip went to congress and asked it to spend the equivalent of $2 billion in today's money on a public works program to generate jobs and stimulate the economy. the dip was the great depression. the president was herbert hoover. and the program was hoover's public economic acceleration or stimulus plan.
8:32 pm
let's play oddball. we begin in peru where these happy couples are preparing for a lifetime of wedded bliss. it's a group wedding ceremony. here are the blushing brides with the groom and here comes his wife. you heard me, the groom's already married with kids. i thought the tiger woods story wasn't until later in the show. once the misses came out about his plans to wed yet once again, she rounded out a few family members and they saved their best punches for the public setting. the man left the ceremony without getting married again and the other couples got to enjoy some free entertainment without the annoying dj or anything like the macarena. germany, ambiguitien tag. jolly old elves world over put themselves through a set of tasks to determine their kriss kringle ness. the event was a success, but predictably, not enough parking for all the reindeer.
8:33 pm
karl rove, ora lee tate's limbaugh, and bill o'the clown on president obama's speech. marcus mow litz joins me next. all right, now that the economy has changed, let's fine-tune your business to take advantage of new opportunities. (music volume decreases) well, ups can help lower warehouse costs, (music volume increases) while increasing your global reach. (volume increases, decreases) more ups technology can help bring down paperwk. (music volume increases) and ups has more shipping options than anyone. hey, it's time to seize the opportunities with ups. (backbeat swells) there, now that sounds perfect. and you're still fighting to sleep in the middle of the night, why would you go one more round using it ? you don't need a rematch-- but a re-think-- with lunesta.
8:34 pm
lunesta is different. it keys into receptors that support sleep, setting your sleep process in motion. lunesta helps you get the restful sleep you need. when taking lunesta, don't drive or operate machinery until you feel fully awake. walking, eating, driving or engaging in other activities while asleep without remembering it the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. alcohol may increase these risks. allergic reactions such as tongue or throat swelling occur rarely and may be fatal. side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. stop fighting with your sleep. get a free 7-night trial on-line and ask your doctor about switching to lunesta. discover a restful lunesta night. yeah. would you like a pony ? ye ! ( cluck, cluck, cluck ) oh, wowww !
8:35 pm
that's fun ! you didn't say could have a real one. well, you didn't ask. even kids know when it's wrong to hold out on somebody. why don't banks ? we're ally, a new bank that alerts you when your money could be worki harder d earning more. it's just the right thing to do.
8:36 pm
no matter what your reaction to president obama's afghanistan speech might be tonight, you did not have to make things up in order to justify for support or your opposition. our third story in the countdown, many on the right even managed to stick to the fights while they got another chance to endorse their favorite thing -- war. the republican national committee applauded sarah palin and william crystal made qualified endorsements. of course, their success is not measured by ratings. >> i thought it was incoherent because his policy was in -- he didn't even announce a policy other than to get out of there. this is all about satisfying -- it's all political! the whole -- he didn't use the word "victory." he didn't talk about winning anything. he talked about bringing it to a successful conclusion. but what -- what's the conclusion?! >> tall it mission accomplished, rush. the conclusion was pretty clear,
8:37 pm
actually, get as much done within the window and get out. the generals got the troops they wanted, the troops begin to come home next year. on television, bill o. came out swinging against the president. "you know, there wasn't the sense of urgency that you would expect from a wartime commander, saying, look, these are bad guys, we're calling them evil." calling them ruthless, radical, nor was calling al qaeda, "a group of extremists who have defiled islam, one of the world's great religion, to justify the slaughter of innocence." then there was karl rove in an all-time piece of pretzel logic. he said he defeated the taliban in afghanistan. about fighting the guys karl rove and george bush had already defeated. >> look, this -- it took him 80-some odd days to do this. it took us 50-some odd days to
8:38 pm
remove the taliban from power in afghanistan after 9/11. it took him 80-some odd days for him to basically say, i'm going to give mcchrystal three quarters of what he requested. >> then obama won't need 25 months. to berkeley, california now, and the founder and publisher of daily k daily coast, marcos. eight years later, there should be an open-ended war to beat the taliban? >> if you're looking for intellectual consistency with these guys, you're going to be sorely disappointed. what happened, yes, the taliban was knocked off in 50 days or so, but then the administration, the bush/cheney/rove administration ignored the issue and it gave the taliban eight years to perfect the art of asymmetrical warfare. now the taliban is far more effective than it ever was those early days. and it's all because of the
8:39 pm
incompetence and irresponsibility of the bush/cheney/rove gang. >> what does it say that people like rove essentially get what they want, what understand, what they love, bombs and blood, and they still can't help themselves. they still have to find something to criticize and not con tect chully, but in terms of volume. >> well, i mean, i think it shows that these guys are not talking, they're not engaging in good faith. they're not good faith participants in the political process. all they want to do is criticize and delay and obstruct and say no. and whenever they deign to give advice to democrats, i think there should be a notice that that advice isn't going to be received well, even if democrats accepted every bit of "advice" from the republicans, they would still get criticized, still be accused of being un-american and all that other bs. so, you know, if you're going to be honest about it, move forward and ignore republicans. they're not good faith actors. >> some of the less laughable
8:40 pm
criticism and the criticism that would fall the most tenuously into that category you just described was about cost. but even there, they overplayed their hands on this. john boehner said, use stimulus money to pay for afghanistan. lindsey graham says, delay health care reform to pay for afghanistan. why the need to overplay what might be, you know, at least a pair of 8s in your hand so severe severely? i mean, why not say, we can't afford this, stop. certainly, that would resonate with their own base sufficiently, and it would be heard, and maybe even reluctantly allied to by progressives, who are also saying, we can't afford this, period. >> well, that would assume that that criticism from boehner and company is actually good faith criticism, like i said. i mean, they have no interest in paying for this thing. they don't care about the human cost of these wars, because it's not their children who are doing the dying and fighting and being kept from their families and children in afghanistan and iraq. and they don't care about the
8:41 pm
money, because it's not them, or not even their grandchildren who are going to be paying for these wars. it's going to be on the backs of the middle class. it's not an honest criticism. we've had eight years of war. we have, what, $1 trillion -- $1 trillion spent in iraq! we've had $250 billion in afghanistan. and not once did they care. they didn't even bother putting that money in the budget. they hid it from the budget. so now they're going to claim that they're really concerned about costs? it's all nonsense. >> the answers to the kinds of criticism and examination that this policy, now that it's revealed in some detail, really needs. did the president answer any of those points last night, to your satisfaction? >> not to my satisfaction. but i think there's a very clear division within my world, my political side of the political divide, the base. people who want out of iraq and people who want to give obama the benefit of the doubt and try to fix this mess created by bush and cheney. i think it's almost a 50/50
8:42 pm
split. i think, though, that we can all agree, that obama said in a year we're going to start drawing down and we're going to be watching carefully. we'll hold obama to that. because we do need to get out. if we can't do it now, if the next best option is within a year, i'll take it, but it better happen. >> marcos move moulitsas of the daily chost, i'll second that. and tiger woods apologizes, won't say for exactly what, but there are now three rumored girlfriends in the thought bubble. how bill o. has inadvertently invoked the meltdown. he and dobbs and bachman make it an all-star night for worst persons. and when rachel joins us, her guest, susan rice. (announcer) we call it the american renewal.
8:43 pm
because we believe in the strength of american businesses. ge capital understands what small businesses need to grow and create jobs.
8:44 pm
today, over 300,000 businesses rely on ge capital for the critical financing they need to help get our economy back on track. the american renewal is happening. right now. the news, apparently official. the kind of golf club mrs. elin
8:45 pm
woods used on her husband's window was a wedge. insert your joke here. on this day of the tiger woods' nonspecific apology, michael musto will have his jokes in a moment. first the worsts. even her supporters are mystified as congresswoman bachmann explains 100% of the private economy used to be private. plus, dobbs and o'reilly. and before this hour ends, i will fulfill my annual ceremonial contractual duty of lighting the rockefeller center christmas tree. for-barbers business. and the this-won't- hurt-a-bit business. because we don't just work here. we live here. these are our families. and our neighbors. and by changing lives we're in more than the energy business we're in the human energy business. chevron.
8:46 pm
so, to paraphrase a blogger at nbc, i wonder if it comes to that if tiger woods
8:47 pm
will be paying the mrs. with one of those oversized checks they give you for winning a golf tournament? to congresswoman michele bachmann, who was given stupidity gold "the federal government now owns or controls 30% of the private economy. just over a year ago, you couldn't say that. just over a year ago, 100% of the private economy was private. today, 30% is owned or controlled by the government." before trying to argue this with lo logic, miss bachmann's party supported it. let's review the key part of that quote. "just over a year ago, 1 hurricane% of the private economy was private" -- just like it is now! just like it was in the year 1449. this is akin to a statement like, today 100% of michele bachmann's problems are half-mental. the runner-up, lou dobbs. senator james inhofe claimed
8:48 pm
that the president will make the statement that he will commit ourselves to the emission standards then insisted obama had no right to unilaterally sign a treaty in helsinki, has if making a verbal commitment were the same thing and lou went nuts. well, more nuts. "senator, this begs the question, if i may put it forward right now -- who the hell does this president think he is?" well, lou, he thinks he's the president. and unlike you, who think you're an independent and who think you're going to wind up on cnbc and who thinks you're going to become senator from new jersey and believes people aren't making fun of you when they tell you that you should be president, this president appears to be, you know, sane. but our winner, bill o. made a boo-boo on his comedy hour the other day. the osama obama. that's not what this is about. it's that billy apparently thought he was taping his show
8:49 pm
when they were actually on the network as he spoke. >> patriots on deck, tonight, starring a congressman who says, you're not going to believe it, president bush allowed obama -- osama -- now i'm going to have to cut that again. >> oh, bill, seriously? you can't remember whether you're doing it on tape or -- >> we'll do it live! >> okay. >> we'll do it leave, [ bleep ]! do it live! i'll write it and we'll do it live. >> bill o. the clown, today's "worst person" -- oh, let's cut this again, sorry. oh, we're live? and you get to choose any car in the aisle. choose any car? you cannot be serious! okay. seriously, you choose. go national. go like a pro.
8:50 pm
with cialis for daily use... a clinically proven, low-dose tablet for erectile dysfunction you take every day so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. (announcer) 36-hour cialis. or cialis for daily use. ask your doctor about cialis today,
8:51 pm
so when the moment is right, you can be ready.
8:52 pm
programming note. i will be interrupting the following segment in a few
8:53 pm
moments to fulfill paragraph 17, clause three of my contract, which requires me to annually light the rockefeller center christmas tree. trust me, i'll be talking to mr. jay pierpont comcast about that. on to our number one story, in which we discovered today that tiger woods' golf handicap is women who work at night spots. add a los angeles waitress and club executive to his foursome. and after apparently seeking one too many birdies, woods today apologized on his website at length without whatever saying he was apologizing for. "i have let me family down and i regret those transgressions with all my heart. i have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. i am not without faults. those feelings should be shared by us alone." that shot has landed in the sand trap of the reality of fame. "life & style" magazine now reporting that tiger woods and vegas nightclub managing mag kalika have hooked up a bunch of time while "us weekly" found the
8:54 pm
cocktail waitress, jaimee grubbs, who claims a 31-month relationship with woods and says she has a message, has played it, that she says is from woods asking her to take his name off her outgoing voice mail message that she says proves everything. >> hey, it's tiger. i need you to do me a huge favor. can you please take your name off your phone? my wife went through my phone and may be calling you. so if you can, please take your name off that. and, what do you call it, just have it as a number on the voice mail. just have it at your telephone number. that's it, okay? you've got to do this for me. huge, quickly. >> joining me now, author of "fork on the left, knife in the back," michael musto. to continue the golf analogies
8:55 pm
and the use of the warnings of the link, fore! michael? >> can you take my name off here. >> you know the intricacies of the media. was this scandal necessary if after the car accident he had not hidden, made up this screwy cover story. might the media have let him get away with it, especially the sports media. >> the sports media still won't even say that jfk cheated. these people have given him such a free pass for so long, tiger has made mary lou retton look dangerous. but i would never want to hear you say, was this scandal necessary again, keith. that is crazy talk. >> okay. the specifics of this. if you're tiger woods, why would you leave a message on an alleged mistress's voice mail saying, hi, it's tiger. if you're going to do that, leave the message at the switchboard of "us weekly" or better yesterday, "ok!" magazine. >> it's like o.j. leaving a message, i'm coming over to cut
8:56 pm
two heads off later. see you later. why not rent a dirigible, my wife's getting suspicious, block your name. >> tmz has reported that mrs. tiger has called up mrs. grubbs, the hollywood lady, and she left her a message. where's that tape? >> i'm sure tiger gave it to "us weekly." no, i don't know. he called her, or mrs. tiger called? >> mrs. tiger then called and said something like, you know who my husband is because you're blanking him. >> well, the whole family should stop calling this woman. it's destroying their image and they're going to have to get a bigger monthly plan. i'm sure grubbs already sold that one on ebay. >> 300 text messages, better have a good plan. tmz reported the woods' estate, the actual home outside orlando, has these surveillance cameras. oops. police haven't seen it, now, presumably they'll have to. they would see what? mrs. tiger going all judge smails on mr. tiger? >> i think you would see a whole
8:57 pm
bunch of decapitated thanksgiving turkeys. five or six cars sinking into the mud like in the movie "psycho," and a long line of vegas hostesses waiting for their hush money. >> the apology today. how do you apologize for five paragraphs on your own website without ever saying what you did when it's next to two ads for your own merchandise. >> i clicked on that and he's selling the phone messages. i got three for the price of two. even carrie prejean, what's her name -- >> carrie prejean -- >> thank you. >> oh, wait a minute. i've got to light the button. here you go. go. >> you're not allowed to do that? >> i had to light the tree. the cue came a little early. >> more tax money. i detest cheap sentiment. back to the important things, carrie prejean acknowledge ed h scandals as they came out. this guy thinks if he can use the blanket term, "transgress n
8:58 pm
"transgressions," that will cover it. how many hostesses? did you tip? >> and the request in there for privacy. i can't remember who said this. it may have been a line from a movie. i'm cleaning it up, but the phrase was, if you want privacy, don't go chasing cocktail waitresses. >> i think that was inniz eisenstein's or maybe it's "what happened in vegas." he put out a press release saying, give me privacy. but we should honor his wishes and show him human decency and let him crash cars and cheat in private. be decent, people. >> this is certainly a different position -- a kinder, gentler michael musto reflected to some degree. don't want to see it in public? get the video later on? >> this is just an act. >> all right. who other than you, who is happy at these, you know, human train wrecks going on? i mean, the white house gate
8:59 pm
crashers. the kid with the -- the two people with the kid and the balloon. jon and kate gosselin. governor mark sanford. who's happy because tiger woods has sort of stepped up and taken the scandal control -- >> as you say, i'm happy. the gate crashers are really pissed because someone is crashing more than they are. but i think governor sanford is happy that he takes planes, because his wife can't bash the windows of a 747, though i've seen her, maybe she can. i think letterman is happy. he's really behind tiger. and adam lambert is totally behind tiger -- when did i turn into buddy hackette? >> and this just in, the gate crashers say they were invited to have an affair with tiger woods -- no, sorry. michael musto of the village voice -- >> just the cocktail hour. >> that's count down for this 2,407th day since the previous president declared mission accomplished in iraq. i'm keith olbermann, and as tiger woods might sign off, thanks for watching me here plg


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on